GeniesLoki

Thought loosely spinning off this morning's pages: One of the reasons a lot of male feminists are kinda miserable is that the lack of a male lived experience informed theory means that often you remove one half of a message but not the other and the result is unsustainable.

For example your traditional heterosexual relationship implicit contract is basically a division of labour, with each side taking care of the other in slightly different ways. (Which is not to say everyone is *good* at this, but best case scenario this is how it works)

But then you've got a bunch of feminist theory pointing out that many of the burdens placed on the woman in this scenario are unreasonable. Fair enough. This is true. BUT this really was two sides in the original format. Unequal maybe, but still two sided.

And if you don't address both sides, what you end up with is men believing: 1. It is inappropriate for me to expect my partner to take care of me (feminism). 2. It is my duty to take care of my partner (patriarchy). This is not a fun set of beliefs to hold.

"a division of labour, with each side taking care of the other in slightly different ways" - what kind of labour are you talking about here? Like mainly emotional support type stuff or more division of housework?

I was thinking specifically emotional support, but also varieties of life admin and shared responsibilities and such. Housework is a part of this but I think is an area best solved by men sorting their shit out and sharing labour equally (not straightforward, but doable)